Economic impact assessment of invasive plant pests in the European Union

According to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (SPS Agreement) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), phytosanitary measures should be economically justifiable. The economic impact assessments within a pest risk analysis are currently based on a framework with qualitative questions and not on an explicit quantification of costs. Available quantitative methodologies to assess plant health risks, and in particular economic impacts, are currently hardly applied in the assessment of plant health risks for the EU, restricting the economic justification of plant health policies

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Quantitative economic impact assessment of invasive plant pests: What does it require and when is it worth the effort?

According to the International Plant Protection Convention and theWorld Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures, any measure against the introduction and spread of new pests must be justified by a science-based pest risk analysis. Economic impact assessments are usually carried out using a qualitative approach, based on classifying the size of impact into five categories, from “minimal” to “massive”. Whilst the qualitative approach may be adequate in many instances, it lacks transparency and demonstrable objectivity. A quantitative approach for economic impact assessment may improve transparency and strengthen the justification for measures, if taken, but requires additional work, and it requires specific data and models. This paper, first, compares the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Second, it clarifies the data and models needed to conduct a quantitative economic impact assessment to support a decision on the pest quarantine status or justify management measures. Third, it identifies the criteria for choosing the appropriate level of complexity, regarding the resolution, economic technique and time frame of the quantitative approach. The greater transparency and objectivity of the quantitative vis-a-vis qualitative economic impact assessment may enhance plant health policy and decision making at national and international regulatory bodies. However, uncertainties that are inherent to this approach may weaken this position. Hence, PRAs require a mixture of quantitative and qualitative approaches for assessing impacts and the exact balance of the two has to be case-specific

Economic impact assessment in pest risk analysis

According to international treaties, phytosanitary measures against introduction and spread of invasive plant pests must be justified by a science-based pest risk analysis (PRA). Part of the PRA consists of an assessment of potential economic consequences. This paper evaluates the main available techniques for quantitative economic impact assessment: partial budgeting, partial equilibrium analysis, input output analysis, and computable general equilibrium analysis. These techniques differ in width of scope with respect to market mechanisms (relationships between supply, demand, and prices), and linkages between agriculture and other sectors of the economy. As a consequence, techniques differ in their ability to assess direct and indirect (e.g. economy-wide) effects of pest introduction. We provide an overview of traits of the available methods to support the selection of the most appropriate technique for conducting a PRA. Techniques with a wider scope require more elaborate data, and greater effort to conduct the analysis. Uncertainties are compounded as methods with greater scope are used. We propose that partial budgeting should be conducted in any risk assessment, while more sophisticated techniques should be employed if the expected gains in insight outweigh the costs and compounded uncertaintie

Economic justification for quarantine status – the case study of 'Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum' in the European Union

International agreements on plant health and trade require that regulating a pest should be justified by economic impact assessment. Economic impact assessments are usually qualitative, weakening the objective and transparency of the regulation decision. This study assessed the potential economic impacts of the invasion of the plant pathogenic bacterium ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ into the European Union in order to economically justify a decision on its quarantine status. Direct economic impacts resulting from yield loss in potato and tomato were computed using partial budgeting at a regional scale, while total economic impacts on the potato and tomato markets were computed using partial equilibrium modelling at the EU scale. Annual direct impacts at the most likely infestation level were estimated at €222 m for the whole EU. Uncertainty analysis showed a distribution of foreseeable annual impacts with a 5th percentile of €192 m, and a 95th percentile of €512 m. Increased market prices of potato and tomato resulting from reduced supply were found to increase profits for non-infested producers and to compensate in part for the production losses of infested producers, with consumers paying for this mitigation of impacts on producers. The expected negative impact on societal welfare at the most likely infestation level is less than the estimated direct impacts, viz. €114 m/year. The potential economic impacts of ‘Ca. L. solanacearum’ in the European Union are demonstrably of major importance. Therefore, a decision to categorize this organism as a quarantine pest is supported